Is the death penalty justice or revenge?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:09:43 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Is the death penalty justice or revenge?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Is the death penalty justice or revenge?
#1
Justice
 
#2
Revenge
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 82

Author Topic: Is the death penalty justice or revenge?  (Read 4689 times)
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 26, 2014, 09:52:46 PM »
« edited: July 26, 2014, 09:55:26 PM by Starwatcher »

It's a false dichotomy -- "justice" and "revenge" are very, very frequently -- perhaps most of the time -- the same thing. Since I support the death penalty and justice has more positive connotations I voted for that, but the distinction is totally meaningless.

There's a difference between consequences meant as punishment/retribution, and consequences meant for prevention.

When you lock someone in jail, you're doing it so they might reform (preventative), so that it will deter others (preventative), and to keep the individual from doing the illegal act again (preventative).

The only other option, besides preventative, for locking someone in jail is for retribution/punishment.

Justice based on preventing evil acts = good. "Justice" based on retribution/punishment = evil.

The only way the death penalty can ever be preventative (and morally justifiable) is if locking a person in jail, even in solitary for life, would not be able to prevent the individual from doing harm... either because of the person's influence from simply being alive, or if a breakout was a real concern.

There's a very real distinction between justice and revenge. One is for the well-being of all individuals in society, the other is for the suffering/death of an individual to satisfy the desires of others.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 26, 2014, 11:31:50 PM »

It's a false dichotomy -- "justice" and "revenge" are very, very frequently -- perhaps most of the time -- the same thing. Since I support the death penalty and justice has more positive connotations I voted for that, but the distinction is totally meaningless.

There's a difference between consequences meant as punishment/retribution, and consequences meant for prevention.

When you lock someone in jail, you're doing it so they might reform (preventative), so that it will deter others (preventative), and to keep the individual from doing the illegal act again (preventative).

The only other option, besides preventative, for locking someone in jail is for retribution/punishment.

Justice based on preventing evil acts = good. "Justice" based on retribution/punishment = evil.

The only way the death penalty can ever be preventative (and morally justifiable) is if locking a person in jail, even in solitary for life, would not be able to prevent the individual from doing harm... either because of the person's influence from simply being alive, or if a breakout was a real concern.

There's a very real distinction between justice and revenge. One is for the well-being of all individuals in society, the other is for the suffering/death of an individual to satisfy the desires of others.

If a person is convicted of a criminal misdemeanor, the penalty is often a fine. That penalty is not intended to be preventative, it's a form of punishment which matches the level of the fine to the severity of the crime. If the fine were preventative, the level would be set based on the wealth of the perpetrator, but it's not. Your statement implies that criminal fines for misdemeanors as generally imposed are evil.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 27, 2014, 03:27:40 AM »

Do you also oppose LWOP sentences then?  Because I consider it a functional equivalent....you are sentenced to die within the perimeter of the prison.

Well, I disagree that they're functional equvalents. Everyone has to die at some point, you're not depriving that person of living his life, even if it's a pretty crappy life. The state isn't making an equivalent decision when sentencing him to die in prison at some possibly distant time in the future.

That said, I do oppose LWOP sentences in most cases because I think they're counterproductive. The vast majority of those imprisoned for life could be released after 15, 20, 30 years without posing a severe threat to society.

And for those that are still considered dangerous, or for the very worst of the worst, parole can still be denied. You don't need to deny the possibility of parole from the very beginning, though.

Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 27, 2014, 04:40:39 AM »

Do you also oppose LWOP sentences then?  Because I consider it a functional equivalent....you are sentenced to die within the perimeter of the prison.

Well, I disagree that they're functional equvalents. Everyone has to die at some point, you're not depriving that person of living his life, even if it's a pretty crappy life. The state isn't making an equivalent decision when sentencing him to die in prison at some possibly distant time in the future.

That said, I do oppose LWOP sentences in most cases because I think they're counterproductive. The vast majority of those imprisoned for life could be released after 15, 20, 30 years without posing a severe threat to society.

And for those that are still considered dangerous, or for the very worst of the worst, parole can still be denied. You don't need to deny the possibility of parole from the very beginning, though.



It's like a more extreme version as to when parents physically discipline their children... why they're actually doing it. In most cases it's not really about teaching the children anything, it's just the parents venting frustration.

Being as harsh and severe as possible with those who break the law is primarily about venting anger or frustration - nothing to do with justice.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2014, 04:44:04 AM »

If the fine were preventative, the level would be set based on the wealth of the perpetrator, but it's not.

It should be.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2014, 04:56:23 AM »

If the fine were preventative, the level would be set based on the wealth of the perpetrator, but it's not.

It should be.

And, in fact, it is in several countries. Here, you're sentenced to x days of income for non-minor fines.
Logged
Hifly
hifly15
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,937


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2014, 05:18:39 AM »

The Right to Life is the most important human right of all.
Logged
Knives
solopop
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,460
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2014, 05:21:24 AM »

The Right to Life is the most important human right of all.

What's the point of living if you're denied the right to choose what to do with your life?
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 27, 2014, 07:03:12 AM »

The Right to Life is the most important human right of all.

What's the point of living if you're denied the right to choose what to do with your life?

Note the broken record's capitalisation...
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 27, 2014, 03:35:18 PM »

If a person is convicted of a criminal misdemeanor, the penalty is often a fine. That penalty is not intended to be preventative, it's a form of punishment which matches the level of the fine to the severity of the crime. If the fine were preventative, the level would be set based on the wealth of the perpetrator, but it's not. Your statement implies that criminal fines for misdemeanors as generally imposed are evil.
When dealing with less serious crimes, besides preventative justice and retributive "justice", there is also reparative justice.

A fine would be preventative (and in some cases, reparative).

I disagree that fines as they exist are intended as punishment only. They are intended to prevent it from happening again, and sometimes to repair the damage. If any are intended as punishment, then they are immoral. It can be preventative and not based on the perpetrator's income. Though it would be a neat idea to begin to base some fines on a person's income.
Logged
BobDavis
Newbie
*
Posts: 4
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 27, 2014, 03:49:56 PM »

It really depends on the crime, but if someone murdered one of your relatives, what kind of penalty would you prefer then?
Logged
swl
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 581
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 27, 2014, 03:56:56 PM »
« Edited: July 27, 2014, 04:13:55 PM by swl »

If someone murdered one of my relative, I would probably feel like doing something horrible to him. If someone raped one of my children, I would probably like to torture him to death, or something like that. But is it the right thing to do?

I think that one of the goals of any State is to reduce violence and to aim towards the ideal goal of a perfectly peaceful society. In this process there is a point where the State has to abandon state-sponsored murder if it wants to further reduce violence among its citizens. Most Western countries have reached that point a while ago, but it's true that the USA are very far from Western standards when it comes to violence in the society. Yet, the fact that this issue is being seriously debated shows that the USA may be not far from the tipping point.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 27, 2014, 04:03:37 PM »

It really depends on the crime, but if someone murdered one of your relatives, what kind of penalty would you prefer then?

It doesn't matter. Whether my relative was killed or a total stranger in another state was killed should have no bearing. Justice is the carrying out of laws with reason and without passion or prejudice. It's not the job of the justice system to make victims "feel better" as so many "victims' rights" groups tend to advocate.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 27, 2014, 04:41:44 PM »

If a person is convicted of a criminal misdemeanor, the penalty is often a fine. That penalty is not intended to be preventative, it's a form of punishment which matches the level of the fine to the severity of the crime. If the fine were preventative, the level would be set based on the wealth of the perpetrator, but it's not. Your statement implies that criminal fines for misdemeanors as generally imposed are evil.
When dealing with less serious crimes, besides preventative justice and retributive "justice", there is also reparative justice.

A fine would be preventative (and in some cases, reparative).

I disagree that fines as they exist are intended as punishment only. They are intended to prevent it from happening again, and sometimes to repair the damage. If any are intended as punishment, then they are immoral. It can be preventative and not based on the perpetrator's income. Though it would be a neat idea to begin to base some fines on a person's income.

Fines and other penalties are designed to show that inappropriate actions have consequences. For most people the knowledge of those consequences can be a deterrent. There is a population for whom even knowledge of the consequences fails as a deterrent. Whether such a person is a child who misbehaved or an adult who intentionally breaks the law, the consequence becomes a punishment.  There can even be an acceptance of that punishment when the person decides that the action was worth the risk of said punishment.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 27, 2014, 05:01:47 PM »

This is quite possibly the worst person ever executed:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaltenbrunner,_Ernst
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 28, 2014, 03:23:05 PM »

It really depends on the crime, but if someone murdered one of your relatives, what kind of penalty would you prefer then?

I made this thread after thinking about that specifically. I am conflicted, but if I were to favor the death penalty, it would be to exact revenge against the killer of my family member.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 29, 2014, 09:42:25 PM »

Suppose a convicted serial killer is sentenced to natural life in prison without parole. While in prison the killer manages to fabricate a knife and kills a prison guard. There is no additional incarceration that the justice system can add to the killer's sentence. If the death penalty is used in this case, I would consider it justice, not revenge.

To be honest, that's more an argument against sentences without parole than a justification for capital punishment.

By all means, keep some people locked up for the rest of their natural lives, but it should be subject to review after a certain amount of time in the vast majority of cases. It's ok if the result is that parole shouldn't be granted for whatever reason, but taking away all hope takes away any incentive to rehabilitate.

And then if the guy given no chance at parole because he killed a prison guard dills again inside? Muon's question is too legitimate to be ducked.
Logged
Mordecai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,465
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 30, 2014, 01:37:06 AM »

Suppose a convicted serial killer is sentenced to natural life in prison without parole. While in prison the killer manages to fabricate a knife and kills a prison guard. There is no additional incarceration that the justice system can add to the killer's sentence. If the death penalty is used in this case, I would consider it justice, not revenge.

To be honest, that's more an argument against sentences without parole than a justification for capital punishment.

By all means, keep some people locked up for the rest of their natural lives, but it should be subject to review after a certain amount of time in the vast majority of cases. It's ok if the result is that parole shouldn't be granted for whatever reason, but taking away all hope takes away any incentive to rehabilitate.

And then if the guy given no chance at parole because he killed a prison guard dills again inside? Muon's question is too legitimate to be ducked.

What about people who are wrongly convicted and sentenced to death?
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 30, 2014, 07:02:56 AM »

Suppose a convicted serial killer is sentenced to natural life in prison without parole. While in prison the killer manages to fabricate a knife and kills a prison guard. There is no additional incarceration that the justice system can add to the killer's sentence. If the death penalty is used in this case, I would consider it justice, not revenge.

To be honest, that's more an argument against sentences without parole than a justification for capital punishment.

By all means, keep some people locked up for the rest of their natural lives, but it should be subject to review after a certain amount of time in the vast majority of cases. It's ok if the result is that parole shouldn't be granted for whatever reason, but taking away all hope takes away any incentive to rehabilitate.

And then if the guy given no chance at parole because he killed a prison guard dills again inside? Muon's question is too legitimate to be ducked.

What about people who are wrongly convicted and sentenced to death?

That's one reason to restrict its application to someone who has been convicted of murders that occurred on two separate dates. The wrongful convictions for death sentences that I've looked at all involved single attacks, but sometimes included multiple victims. By restricting it to separate days those cases would be excluded.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 14 queries.